RabidDawgClassic
- Los Angeles, CA
Since you asked… context does not necessarily require immediacy. Had the reporter asked a question about the Illinois coaching staff vs the Michigan coaching staff, the context of his answer would be obvious. Critical thinking would not be required.There we go, an actual rebuttal.
Why is my interpretation of the context incorrect? Did the reporter ask him a question about Illinois? The reporter asked him a question about shooting 3s and a couple dribble drives. You're injecting context that simply wasn't there in his interaction with the reporter. He was asked a specific question and gave a very cookie-cutter response.
PS, I can let this go anytime you guys want, I'm just clicking 'reply' to your objections to my original comment that people are reading in to a post-game interview a bit too much.
However, in this case, the context of the matter has an established history, one which does require critical (but not complex) thinking. It began with Kedric Prince’s detailed conversation with Morez about how the Illini staff didn’t appreciate his all around game, especially his three point shot. Later, Morez posted a picture on social media showing him taking his lone three point shot of the season. He has since seemingly gone out of his way to repeatedly praise the current coaching staff for allowing him to evolve his game (the most recent interview was not the first instance of that). And none of this includes his father’s comments about the Illini staff.
In a vacuum, any of these instances wouldn’t mean anything in particular. But added up, and connecting point A to point B to point C, Occam’s Razor would indicate that Morez is taking not-so-subtle jabs at the previous staff — even if he doesn’t realize he’s doing so.
This simple interpretation of context is why we have the saying “me’thinks the lady doth protest too much.”